If you visit Vienna, then the probability is that you've gone to see buildings like Otto Wagner's Jungendstil designs or Olbrich's Secession building. But if you walk to Michaelerplatz, then you're confronted by a historical inflection point, cast in stone. On one side is the dome of the Baroque royal palace. On the other is the Looshaus, an austere building that presaged the work of Corbusier and Mies Van Der Rohe. And, to return to my starting point, these essays reflect the world view of its creator, Adolf Loos.
To start with the more positive aspects of these essays, Loos sees the extravagant nature of women's clothing as an obstacle towards greater equality: "(W)e are approaching a new and greater time. Women’s equality with men is prompted no longer through an appeal to sensuality, but rather through the economic and intellectual independence of women as achieved by work. Women’s value or lack of it will not rise and fall with changes in sensuality. Then velvet and silk, flowers and ribbons, feathers and paints will lose their effect. They will disappear." This is both a laudable sentiment and a good description of what subsequently happened as women's clothing became less ornamental and more designed for practical use. In fact, Loos does see the removal of decoration as progressive force: "Today the worker and the English king, from the stylistic point of view, wear fundamentally the same clothes. Our presidents and monarchs in the twentieth century do not have the slightest need for mummery with crowns and ermine cloaks." We might also note that Loos was adamantly opposed to the distinction between architecture as a form of knowledge work and crafts as a form of manual labour, seeing the two as essentially coterminous; "Until recently we were living in a curious time, which saw the brain-worker as everything and the hand-worker as nothing. In social terms, the man in the blue apron, however proficient he might have been, was far below the ill-paid little clerk in the office... The English efficiently swept away the notion of the inferiority of craft. If you want to make a pot, don’t design some notional geometrical figure, but sit down at the potter’s wheel yourself. If you want to make a chair, don’t spend ages doing sketches all over the place, but pick up your chisel." Similarly, a lot of emphasis on fidelity to materials recalls the sort of things William Morris would say: although Loos never cites Morris directly there's a marked strain of Anglophilia throughout the essays. Occasionally, when Loos is advancing the view that traditional peasant design was preferrable to rarified aristocratic tastes, his tone is stridently leftist: "(T)he peasant lost his independence. He became a bondservant. And bondservant he had to remain, he and his children’s children. Why should he make an effort to rise above his surroundings by changing his outfit, by introducing a change to his clothing? There was no point. The peasant class became a caste, and the peasant was cut off from any chance of escaping that caste."
And with that, we can't really delay coming to the negative aspects, which are remorseless and insistent. The subject matter covered here is quite staggering: painting, furniture, suits, porcelain, underwear, glass, hats, architecture, dresses, music, shoes and so on and so forth. If there is something available to dislike then Loos will readily do so. As far as furniture is concerned, Loos is scornful of middles class homes getting above their station, as he sees it, with the same sort of furniture found in aristocratic villas. The ornate facades on Vienna's Ringstrasse are described as Potemkin buildings, occupied by parvenus trying to assert an aristocratic status they lack, something he sees as ridiculous and immoral: "As a genuine parvenu he thought everyone else had failed to notice the deception. The parvenu always believes that. He confidently believes that the false shirt-front, the fake fur, all the imitated things he surrounds himself with completely fulfil their purpose. All those who stand above him, those who have already gone beyond this parvenu stage, meaning those who know, smile at his pointless efforts. And over time even the parvenu’s eyes are opened. At his friends’ homes he sees one thing after another he had previously thought was authentic." There's a persistent view that decoration is immoral: that surfaces painted to look like hard wood or with gilding applied are a deceit: "Poverty is not a disgrace. Not everyone can be born into a feudal manor house. But to pretend such a thing to one’s fellow men is ridiculous, immoral. So let us not be ashamed of the fact that we live in a house with many others who are socially our equals." As far as fashion is concerned, Loos is contemptuous of dandies with flamboyant clothing, noting disapprovingly that "No nation has so many fops as Germany. A fop is a person who uses clothes only to stand out against his surroundings... No fop can admit to being one. One fop makes fun of the other, and on the pretext of eradicating fophood, they constantly commit new acts of foppery."
Loos does advance practical arguments against decoration (cost, efficiency, waste of materials: time is money as he says) but, on the whole, the sense you get is that he was primarily driven by a sense of disgust and one he frequently, and bizarrely, chooses to express in openly racist terms: "The Papuan slaughters his enemies and devours them. He is not a criminal. But if modern man slaughters and devours someone, he is a criminal or a degenerate. The Papuan tattoos his skin, his boat, his rudder, in short everything that lies to hand. There are prisons in which 80 per cent of the inmates have tattoos. The tattooed people who are not in jail are latent criminals or degenerate aristocrats. The urge to ornament one’s face and everything that lies to hand are the primal origins of visual art." Moving from an excess of decorative elements on the Ringstrasse to tattoos is quite the leap but Loos clearly had a particular fixation with the origin of tattoos in cultures like the Maori, which the afterword connects to Cesare Lombroso's notion of criminal atavism, a eugenicist approach to criminology. Extreme as this now seems, we should also note that the use of terms like 'degeneracy' take on a particularly sinister connotation in retrospect.